12640072 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2017)

Ex Parte Chu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 20, 2017

12640072 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/640,072 12/17/2009 Thomas P. Chu ALU/130209 8063 46363 7590 10/24/2017 Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. 12 Christopher Way Suite 105 Eatontown, NJ 07724 EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/24/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing @ trbklaw .com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS P. CHU and RAMESH NAGARAJAN Appeal 2017-003579 Application 12/640,0721 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1 and 28—52.2 We have jurisdiction over the rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Technology The application relates to searching for a service in a peer-to-peer (P2P) network. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at issue emphasized: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is “Alcatel Lucent, which is now part of Nokia.” Br. 3. 2 Claims 2—27 were canceled. Br. 23. The Examiner also indicated claim 53 would be allowable if rewritten to independent form. Final Act. 9. Appeal 2017-003579 Application 12/640,072 1. A method for searching for a service within a peer-to-peer (P2P) network comprising a plurality of nodes, the method comprising: detecting, at a first node of the P2P network, a request to search for a service within the P2P network, wherein the first node comprises a collection of entries identifying a plurality of nodes of the P2P network; determining, based on an estimated average number of active nodes of the P2P network that support the service, a search range size for use by the first node in searching for the service within the P2P network, determining, based on the search range size, a first search range for use by the first node in searching for the service within the P2P network, wherein the first search range specifies a first range of node identifiers of the P2P network; identifying, from the collection of entries based on the first search range, an identified subset of nodes comprising a subset of the nodes of the P2P network identified in the collection of entries; and initiating a service search request from the first node toward a selected node of the identified subset of nodes, wherein the service search request is a request to identify at least one node of the P2P network that supports the service, wherein the service search request comprises information indicative of the service and a second search range for use by the selected node to search for the service within the P2P network, wherein the second search range specifies a second range of node identifiers of the P2P network. Rejection Claims 1 and 28—52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Maenpaa et al. (US 2012/0197962 Al; Aug. 2, 2012); Wang et al. (US 2008/0043634 Al; Feb. 21, 2008); and Joung, Approaching neighbor proximity and load balance for range query in P2P networks, 52 Computer Networks 1451 (2008). Final Act. 3. 2 Appeal 2017-003579 Application 12/640,072 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Maenpaa and Wang teaches or suggests “determining, based on an estimated average number of active nodes of the P2P network that support the service, a search range size for use by the first node in searching for the service within the P2P network,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds Maenpaa teaches “determining ... a search range size for use by the first node in searching for the service within the P2P network” but “does not explicitly teach ‘based on an estimated average number of active nodes of the P2P network that support the service.’” Final Act. 4—5 (citing Maenpaa Abstract, H 11, 29, 38-43). Instead, the Examiner relies on Wang for the “based on an estimated average number of active nodes of the P2P network that support the service” limitation. Id. at 5—6. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Wang’s teaching of “a weight or strength w indicative of the value or utility of the associated node.” Ans. 3 (citing Wang || 4, 38-41). We agree with Appellants, however, that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown Wang’s tracking of nodes’ “usefulness” teaches or suggests “an estimated average number of active nodes of the P2P network that support the service.” Br. 16—17. For example, a node may have a high weight of usefulness because it provides a different service that is requested more often (e.g., resource sharing), even though the node does not provide the currently requested service. In the Answer, the Examiner further finds that in Maenpaa, the variable “L” is “the number of nodes a location request visits in total. . ., i.e. 3 Appeal 2017-003579 Application 12/640,072 search range size,” and “the percentage of nodes acting as service nodes ( density) is D . . ., i.e. estimated average number of active node that support the service.” Ans. 2—3 (citing Maenpaa ]Hf 47—50). The Examiner acknowledges that in Maenpaa, L is calculated based solely on “the total number of nodes in the network (N)” and the number of parallel location requests (M). Id. Nevertheless, the Examiner concludes that [i]t would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Maenpaa to determine a search range size based on . . . density of the service node . . . because if the density is low, a larger set of nodes needs to be queried .... Id. at 3. Although it may be possible that Maenpaa could be modified such that the search range size was calculated based on density, the Examiner has not provided enough explanation on how or why density would be used. For example, the portions of Maenpaa cited by the Examiner appear to instead rely on “send[ing] M parallel location requests to speed up the service discovery process” (147) and creating more “service records” to point to nodes providing a service (see ]Hf 48—51). Accordingly, given the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and 28—52. DECISION For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 28—52. REVERSED 4